1.

Lane Wallace begins her argument with a series of questions to get her
readers thinking about what is selfish and what is heroic. In your own
words, state the claim that she express in lines 18-21. Take into account
the information she presents in the rest of her argument, including her
conclusions at the end.

The claim she is expressing in lines 18-21 is that survival is not always a selfish
act since many survival situations are different. For example, she says the woman on a
plane that crash landed saved herself while people were still stunned by what
happened. Wallace believes that this shouldnt be counted as a selfish act since if she
tried to save everyone on the plane, she wouldnt have been able to anyway because
nobody was moving toward the exits and she was in the back of the plane. Another
example she provides is when people dont follow edicts and end up being saved, yet
they get heavily criticized after.

2. Wallace writes that the number one determining factor for survival is
simply whether people hold it together in a crisis or fall apart (lines 40-42).
Is this an example of a claim, a reason, or evidence? Explain.

This is an example of a claim because she uses evidence to back up this quote
after. For example, she talks about how people were just standing looking at a pillar of
smoke from a terrorist bomb instead of leaving the area to get to safety. Another
example she uses, is about a woman who saved herself from dying after her plane had
crashed because people were just sitting and screaming when they should have been
heading toward the emergency exits.

3. In lines 24-37 what evidence does Wallace offer to support her claim idea
that people are not always focused on doing whatever [is] necessary to
survive in a crisis? Is the evidence relevant and sufficient? Explain.

She uses an event that happened to her as an evidence to support her claim. I
would say that this evidence is relevant and sufficient because she was in a dangerous
situation with a terrorist bomb going off and the crowd of people were just staring at the
pillar of smoke. Some were staring, others screaming, crying and on their phones, all
while her and her friend had escaped. This is a good piece of evidence to support her
claim since no one else was moving and trying to save themselves.
 4. In the lines 44-60, Wallace notes that survivors often suffer from feelings of
guilt. Does she think these feelings are justified? Does she support her
reasoning with relevant and sufficient evidence? Explain your response.

I believe that these feelings are not justified. I believe that she does support her
reasoning since her evidence is a great example of why it shouldnt be justified. If the
woman on the plane were to have wanted to save all the people on the plane, she
would have died with them at their fault and not her own. Wallace even supports this
from her previous experience of people not going to safety and lingering within the
danger.

5. Reread lines 86-91. As evidence for Wallaces claim, is this paragraph valid
and relevant? Explain.

I think that this paragraph is not valid or relevant because its more of an open
thought than rather a supporting piece of evidence for her claim. Saying that there is
also an impulse/instinct that people have to go towards danger seems more of a
random statement in an article whose claim is to discuss whether the act of survival is
selfish or not.

6. In the final paragraph, Wallace writes that there is a fine line between
smart and selfish, and that Sometimes theres no line at all. What does
she mean by this, and how does her conclusion restate her claim?

I believe that she means that you cant choose to be smart or selfish in a
situation that involves survival. Often in times, it would end up that the smartest thing
you can do is survive is to be selfish and survive yourself. This conclusion restates her
claim because Wallaces claim is that there are many factors that go into the act of
survival and in many survival situations, it is always different.